pro-life activist Randall Terry to announce primary challenge against Obama

[Mr. Morden]

link:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/pro-life-activist-randall-terry-looks-defeat-barack-obama-2012-dem-primaries

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SvenssonRS]

And in come the flood of joke candidates who make Herman Cain look like a serious contender.

[Lambsbread]

A challenge is a challenge. He won't win, but I'm glad someone has the balls to do it.

[Beet]

Am I the only one confused about why a Republican would run for the Democratic nomination?

[Lambsbread]

Am I the only one confused about why a Republican would run for the Democratic nomination?

Jimmy McMillan (Registered Democrat) is going to run as a Republican in 2012.

[Oakvale]

A challenge is a challenge. He won't win, but I'm glad someone has the balls to do it.

I think every President gets a bunch of these kind of "challengers" in their re-election bid.

[Beet]

Am I the only one confused about why a Republican would run for the Democratic nomination?

Jimmy McMillan (Registered Democrat) is going to run as a Republican in 2012.

Excellent; you've succeeded in doubling my confusion.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Terry for President!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Terry for President!

That says it all

[Mr. Morden]

Am I the only one confused about why a Republican would run for the Democratic nomination?

Jimmy McMillan (Registered Democrat) is going to run as a Republican in 2012.

Excellent; you've succeeded in doubling my confusion.

It sounds like Terry's candidacy is just an effort to get graphic anti-abortion ads on TV, so I'm not sure it matters which party's nomination he runs for.  Maybe he thinks he'll get more publicity as Obama's only primary challenger (or at least, the most high profile one) than he would as one of 15 Republicans running in that party's primaries.

In the case of McMillan, it's possible that he has some delusions about making it into the debates (and there won't be any debates on the Democratic side, so he'd have to go GOP).  OTOH, hasn't he run as a Republican at some point in the past as well?  So maybe there's more to it than that.

[Person Man]

Am I the only one confused about why a Republican would run for the Democratic nomination?

Jimmy McMillan (Registered Democrat) is going to run as a Republican in 2012.

Excellent; you've succeeded in doubling my confusion.

It sounds like Terry's candidacy is just an effort to get graphic anti-abortion ads on TV, so I'm not sure it matters which party's nomination he runs for.  Maybe he thinks he'll get more publicity as Obama's only primary challenger (or at least, the most high profile one) than he would as one of 15 Republicans running in that party's primaries.

In the case of McMillan, it's possible that he has some delusions about making it into the debates (and there won't be any debates on the Democratic side, so he'd have to go GOP).  OTOH, hasn't he run as a Republican at some point in the past as well?  So maybe there's more to it than that.

Will we be able to DVR those ads so when our kids are brats, we can show them what happens if they continue to be little sh**theads? Terry for president, indeed!

[pbrower2a]

Randall Terry may be more giving a message to the GOP:

'Don't assume that our votes are yours!'

The GOP has long pandered to the 'pro-life' voters with promises to ban abortion only to let them down. Like them or not, single-issue anti-abortion voters have been getting the shaft from the Corporate Right that invariably shows that it has 'bigger' issues.  The GOP has gotten the votes in close elections for President, some governors, and Congress. But what have anti-abortion voters gotten? Nothing.

We need to remember that the "pro-life" groups largely split, at least culturally, along religious lines: about half Catholic (who might be rather liberal on some issues -- economics, war and peace, and the death penalty) and largely-fundamentalist Protestants who are quite reactionary on those issues. 

 

[Person Man]

Randall Terry may be more giving a message to the GOP:

'Don't assume that our votes are yours!'

The GOP has long pandered to the 'pro-life' voters with promises to ban abortion only to let them down. Like them or not, single-issue anti-abortion voters have been getting the shaft from the Corporate Right that invariably shows that it has 'bigger' issues.  The GOP has gotten the votes in close elections for President, some governors, and Congress. But what have anti-abortion voters gotten? Nothing.

We need to remember that the "pro-life" groups largely split, at least culturally, along religious lines: about half Catholic (who might be rather liberal on some issues -- economics, war and peace, and the death penalty) and largely-fundamentalist Protestants who are quite reactionary on those issues. 

 

...and don't forget secular abortion opponents, though I have a feeling that though more young people are open about being pro-life atheists/agnostics, that those sentiments are distributed quite fairly amongst cohorts. However, most of them probably don't vote on abortion or don't see it the same way that conventional anti-abortionists do. Anyone's thoughts on this?

Though I don't see a concensus forming abortion, it would truly be interesting to see if the entire abortion debate could be departisanized.

[Progressive]

lol

[albaleman]

And in come the flood of joke candidates who make Herman Cain look like a serious contender.